Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Friday, June 1, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version Print | Comments

Document Atheism shall make you free

by Pamela Bone, The Australian

Thanks to Russell Blackford for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21828394-7583,00.html

"ALL of the things all the religions teach us may be nonsense, yet some kind of god might still exist. If we can't prove God doesn't exist, shouldn't we be calling ourselves agnostics rather than atheists?" a member of a Melbourne audience asked French philosopher Michel Onfray this week (writes Pamela Bone).

"Non", replied the author of The Atheist Manifesto (Melbourne University Press). "We do not have to prove that God doesn't exist. It is people who affirm that God does exist who must prove it."

In any case, he added, philosophers have proved God doesn't exist.

Well, that's a relief (I should declare the questioner was me). Nevertheless, I insist on my point. Anyone prepared to give it serious thought must suspect that the God of the Bible or the Koran, whose words contradict each other all over the place, here teaching kindness and mercy, there preaching cruelty and vengeance, is man-made.

Just consider how would someone be greeted today who stood up on a box in the street and said God had authorised him to tell men they could have four wives, or as many slave-girls as they might own.

But this does not prove no God exists. Perhaps all the religions have got him wrong? I am unable to believe that the physical body of Jesus rose up into the spiritual place of heaven. Yet I know that millions of people more intelligent than I am do believe this. And that a virgin gave birth; and that the body and blood of Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist. Faith has little to do with IQ. What has it to do with then? Studies of identical twins adopted at birth by different parents provide useful clues as to what is inherited and what is learned.

The studies - of which there are now many - indicate that a tendency to religiosity is genetically determined; if one twin is very religious the other nearly always is too, no matter how they were brought up. For believers, such studies should raise a confronting question: why would an all-loving God create some of his people without the capacity for believing in him, and then, according to scriptures, send them to eternal hellfire for not believing in him?

Yet genetics do not explain why about 70 per cent of Swedes and 48 per cent of French are unbelievers, but only 25 per cent of Australians, 15 per cent of Spaniards and 4 per cent of Irish. Or what makes religious belief surge and wane across populations and over time. Or even fully explain what makes some people react to an event such as September 11 by becoming more religious and some to conclude that religion is just too dangerous to be tolerated.

These are questions people are thinking about. Onfray, who is also a guest of the Sydney Writers Festival, spoke to a capacity crowd in Melbourne. The Atheist Manifesto is an international bestseller. So is Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion; and Sam Harris's The End of Faith; and Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Infidel, a piercingly brave denunciation of Islam's treatment of women. And so is Christopher Hitchens's engaging and reasoned God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Dawkins's two-part series on ABC-TV's Compass program provided some of the most thought-provoking television seen in years.

But while people are buying the books and watching the television and flocking to live audiences, the reaction of most Australian reviewers and commentators has been critical or dismissive. The God Delusion has scarcely received one positive review in this country. Even the hip panellists of ABC-TV's Tuesday Book Club canned it. Reviews of The Atheist Manifesto have been similarly scornful.

Some commentators have gone so far as to label the current crop of atheist books as "dangerous", which seems to me in itself to be a somewhat dangerous attempt to stifle debate. A book promoting atheism could only be dangerous if atheists were calling for religious believers to be put to death, or even discriminated against; and no atheist is calling for that.

Part of the reason may be the curious habit books editors have of giving a book opposing religion to a religious person to review. Do they really expect someone whose world view is being challenged to praise it?

Or it may be the great reluctance that still exists, even in a secular society, to criticise religious beliefs.

One wonders what there is about belief in a supernatural being that sets it apart from, for example, political beliefs. Why is a firm conviction held without proof seen as a sign of virtue?

Surprisingly, American reviewers have been much more positive. Apparently, in that home of religious certainty it is more permissible to have a conversation about unbelief than it is here.

It is a conversation the human race needs to have with itself. The uses to which religion is being put around the world dictate this. Intelligence may have little to do with faith, but culture does. I don't think it is an accident that Sweden, The Netherlands and France, the least religious of Western countries, are also the healthiest, wealthiest, freest and most educated.

Religion is not going to die out soon no matter how educated people become, or how many books explaining it away are written.

Billions of people derive comfort from religious belief, and they should not be denied this. Millions of people also are motivated by their religion to do good works (others find it odd that some people think they need religion in order to be good).

Learned philosophers might disagree, but agnosticism seems to me a sensible enough position. If the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved, it follows that it is no more moral to believe than not to believe, and there is no reason why religious schools and religious organisations should be preferred over others, or given special status or tax exemptions.

If more of us could simply admit that we don't know - which is not at all the same as saying we should stop asking the questions - this world, the only one we can know for certain exists, might just be a little safer and happier for all.

Pamela Bone is a Melbourne writer.

Comments 1 - 50 of 79 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #46825 by BAEOZ on June 1, 2007 at 9:27 pm

 avatarHoly Zeus and Thor's Hammer! Is it possible that an Australian paper had an article that was reasonable and didn't just try a hatchet job on Atheists whilst practicing obscurantism about religious beliefs and how the atheist in question doesn't get their belief? I think I need a lie down. I'm suffering from some form of cognitive dissonance.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

2. Comment #46829 by roach on June 1, 2007 at 9:45 pm

Good article. I'm pretty happy I no longer call myself an agnostic though. That fence really started to hurt my ass.

Other Comments by roach

3. Comment #46831 by BAEOZ on June 1, 2007 at 9:49 pm

 avatarOh yeah, I forgot in my attack of giddyness. We are all atheists with respect to the tooth fairy, etc, is she suggesting that she is agnostic to it's existence? I don't think it's hard to be an atheist about the existence of god.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

4. Comment #46832 by james_the_doubter on June 1, 2007 at 10:02 pm

Yup, yup, yup... I found myself agreeing with almost all of that.

To quote:
"The studies - of which there are now many - indicate that a tendency to religiosity is genetically determined; if one twin is very religious the other nearly always is too, no matter how they were brought up. For believers, such studies should raise a confronting question: why would an all-loving God create some of his people without the capacity for believing in him, and then, according to scriptures, send them to eternal hellfire for not believing in him?"

As a Christian, I have been quietly wondering the same thing for years.

Other Comments by james_the_doubter

5. Comment #46833 by Russell Blackford on June 1, 2007 at 10:04 pm

I like Pamela Bone's journalism, but I do wonder about some aspects of this article. E.g. I think that she should be prepared to use some term other than "agnostic", which is little more than a euphemism to avoid offence ... at least when used by someone who clearly has no belief in any deity and is not even attracted to the idea.

I also wonder about this business of not depriving billions of people of their "comfort". Now, there may be many people who live lives so miserable and circumscribed that their acceptance of a fundamentally false worldview is the least of their worries. Perhaps it is harsh to want to take away their comforting lies which may be a large part of what makes life seem bearable and worthwhile to them. But it's a tragic situation.

It's also tragic that many other people who are not otherwise in any terrible situation are living with a comprehensive view of the world that is actually comprehensively false, and which circumscribes and distorts how they live and think and judge the actions of others. In the case of these people, I do want to take away their "comfort" ... or, rather, I want to persuade them to let it go.

My further thoughts here:

http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2007/06/more-on-michel-onfray.html

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

6. Comment #46834 by BAEOZ on June 1, 2007 at 10:10 pm

 avatarYeah, I think it was in Carl Sagan's book where he said something along the lines of "even if you do get joy out of false belief, wouldn't you want to know the truth? Just as you'd want to know if a popular politician is on the take......" Probably didn't even paraphrase that, I think the point's there, everybody owes it to themselves to find out the truth...... (not the Bible truth TM)

Other Comments by BAEOZ

7. Comment #46837 by ridelo on June 1, 2007 at 10:56 pm

Some commentators have gone so far as to label the current crop of atheist books as "dangerous"

Curious, but always as somebody calls a book 'dangerous' I get 'an uncontrollable lust' to read it. Maybe those books should wear a burka. ;-)

Other Comments by ridelo

8. Comment #46838 by Helios G2V on June 1, 2007 at 10:56 pm

 avatar"The studies - of which there are now many - indicate that a tendency to religiosity is genetically determined; if one twin is very religious the other nearly always is too, no matter how they were brought up."

Can anyone direct me to the studies Pamela writes about?
If religiosity is genetic I think my parents have been keeping something from me. They tried so hard to bring up a god fearing boy.
My earlist recollections are that church was boring and nobody had actually met jesus, yet spoke of him like they had just finished eating breakfast with him.

Other Comments by Helios G2V

9. Comment #46839 by ridelo on June 1, 2007 at 11:11 pm

Learned philosophers might disagree, but agnosticism seems to me a sensible enough position.


I agree. If you also accept agnosticism about the existence of Santaclaus and the tooth fairie. Same kind of probability. And if you think I'm wrong, read TGD again.

Other Comments by ridelo

10. Comment #46842 by Titchfield on June 1, 2007 at 11:42 pm

"Billions of people derive comfort from religious belief, and they should not be denied this. Millions of people also are motivated by their religion to do good works (others find it odd that some people think they need religion in order to be good)."

Rubbish. Billions of people living in the most appalling ignorance and often poverty, does not sound like a comfortable situation to me. Would they not derive comfort from the certain knowledge that having sex with a condom on will not damn them to eternal torture and will in all likelihood improve their quality of life? The fact that billions of people are supposedly believers (many in societies where to admit to being otherwise is to effectively sign your own death warrant) does not mean that they do believe or that their religious beliefs are anything other than an absolute nightmare for them.

As for people being motivated by religion to do good works, that seems increasingly unlikely as we gather more information about the way our brain works. There doesn't seem to be any reason to think that our morals are anything other than an inevitable result of evolution. If you were to take moral guidance from the bible or koran you'd probably seem pretty much like a psychopath these days.

Other Comments by Titchfield

11. Comment #46847 by mmurray on June 2, 2007 at 12:13 am

 avatarIt is worthwhile following the link below to the comments page. There are some really loony people in my country. Someone who thinks quantum physics can show there is a god of a deist kind. I do know something about quantum physics and this is just rubbish. I did like the one who thought there was a personal god who laughs at their jokes. That's what I need -- my children are growing up and starting to think my jokes are lame.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

12. Comment #46848 by bouwe on June 2, 2007 at 12:45 am

Pamela Bone used to write for the Age (Melbourne paper). Now it seems she has jumped over to work for Murdoch (the Australian). I am relieved to see that this has not affected her considerable journalistic credibility. Then again, Murdoch always likes to get a "token lefty" on board (does Phillip Adams still write for the Australian?), so he can point to them and say "See? It is 'fair and balanced'!!"

My only problem with this article is that by choosing the easy path of calling herself agnostic, she contributes to the continued misunderstanding of the meaning of the word atheist. When you choose to set yourself apart and insist on being defined as "agnostic" it immediately gives rise to the misunderstanding that atheism is a 'belief' or that atheists "claim to prove" that god doesn't exist. Atheism is the result of agnosticism. She understands this, of course. I think if people, for whatever reason, feel that they need to separate themselves from atheists and define themselves in this way then that is fine so long as they point out that atheism is not as mentioned above. As a journalist, she ought to make this point extra clear, because most people think that agnosticism is some "more reasonable in-between" position.


However, I think it is their duty to point out that

Other Comments by bouwe

13. Comment #46851 by james_the_doubter on June 2, 2007 at 1:01 am

(could someone tell me how to quote instead of cut/paste, please?)

bouwe, you said:
"When you choose to set yourself apart and insist on being defined as "agnostic" it immediately gives rise to the misunderstanding that atheism is a 'belief' or that atheists "claim to prove" that god doesn't exist."

I am new to these discussions, so excuse my ignorance here, but I just read The God Delusion, and I would say that Dawkins has a very strong belief, and does set out to prove that god doesn't exist.

Other Comments by james_the_doubter

14. Comment #46854 by Shuggy on June 2, 2007 at 1:11 am

 avatar2. Comment #46829 by roach on June 1, 2007 at 9:45 pm
I no longer call myself an agnostic ... That fence really started to hurt my ass.
T-shirts coming up!

Other Comments by Shuggy

15. Comment #46856 by Logicel on June 2, 2007 at 1:19 am

 avatarTitchfield wrote: Billions of people living in the most appalling ignorance and often poverty, does not sound like a comfortable situation to me.
______

I would suspect that Ms. Bone is interested in eradicating extreme global poverty, and if I am correct in this assumption, then her words are carelessly presented. Otherwise, her article is a welcome addition to positive reviews regarding the current crop of atheist writings. Though I agree with others that her use of agnosticism was also carelessly presented.

Statistics show when poverty and insecurity are lessened, so are religious beliefs. In the light of these statistics, the religious attraction to glorifying poverty and pain--like what that pathetic Mother Teresa did--becomes clear. Do/did missionaries, past and present, actually play(ed) a concrete role in permanently removing the causes of poverty, or did they just offer some slight relief in the form of ministered goods, instead of actually imparting skills, solid education, and essential tools so these poor people and their future generations could steadily erase poverty? In other words, just keep them alive long enough to convert them? What motivation do these missionaries have to really and truly erase global poverty? Poverty is a great boon for their business.

In the case of Mother Teresa, she basically took starving, diseased, dying people who were in great pain, off the streets to let them die indoors on concrete beds, claiming they were better off. In my mind, they were worse off, because they should/could have been given so much more. And that bitch had the resources/publicity to do so. If you go to the trouble of taking them off the street, then please only do that if you can really make a difference. I can imagine desperate people, in great despair and pain, at first, feeling a sense of hope when their plight was finally noticed when they were picked off the street by that bitch's minions, only to rot indoors, instead of out on the street.

As much as the Gates Foundation is criticized for its possible monopoly in the charity field, I think their 'mission' statement is spot on, and I suspect that they will be able to make the world a bit more receptive to atheism by lessening the root problems--like rampant disease and malnutrition--which feed religious beliefs.

Other Comments by Logicel

16. Comment #46857 by BAEOZ on June 2, 2007 at 1:22 am

 avatar
I am new to these discussions, so excuse my ignorance here, but I just read The God Delusion, and I would say that Dawkins has a very strong belief, and does set out to prove that god doesn't exist.

I think for a person who has or had religious faith it's a very easy mistake to make. Dawkins is quite passionate, and at times strident because he sees damage done in the name of god and religion. Atheism is the lack of belief in god or supernatural entities. It doesn't imply an alternate belief system competing with religion. Dawkins would change his position to accepting there was a god if there was evidence that could only be explained by god. That is he doesn't have faith in atheism. A believer in religion holds fast to their faith, inspite of a total lack of evidence and contradictions of their faith like an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god can't allow evil to exist and the trinity is 3 distinct entities but 1 entity at the same time. 3 is not 1 so that trinity is bunk. Did that explain it?

Other Comments by BAEOZ

17. Comment #46858 by ridelo on June 2, 2007 at 1:23 am

To james_the_doubter:
When you're logged in you see [Comment Posting Guidelines] above the comments area. Click there and you'll get all you want about formatting.

Other Comments by ridelo

18. Comment #46861 by Veronique on June 2, 2007 at 1:31 am

 avatarI checked out the comments page to the Australian Michael. You are right - a lot of loons. I posted my own comment, reproduced below:

Only 25% of Australians don't believe in god?? I can't accept that. Someone is telling one huge whopper. Unless people are still recording the faith into which their parents had them baptised or christened. Surely that percentage doesn't include the children under 3? And what about our 70,000 Jedis? Even my plumber smiles a little sheepishly and says he only pretends to others that he believes in god; so much for Census stats.

She got the Irish wrong too. As of earlier this year, Ireland reported 12% as not believing in god, up from 1% 30 years ago. Hmmph.

At least she 'suspects' that god is man-made. She's a lot further along the track than numerous others. And while faith has nothing to do with IQ, neither does reason. It helps a little to be sure, to be sure. She just needs to say that she doesn't believe out loud and in print. She wouldn't lose readership and she could bop her editor over the head if he/she demurred.

I would also like to see the studies on identical twins she mentions. I am almost certain that if a child were to be brought up with no contact with the god concept and was taught to look, wonder, marvel and find out about nature, god would never enter into his/her world view.

It's the permeation of religions throughout the cultures that brings it into the focus of children. That's all. Without that, no one today would, or even could, think up such belief structures with all their attendant stories, rules, prohibitions etc. Religions have had so much time to infiltrate culture that they feel entitled to more airtime than they have ever deserved.

Go Michel Onfray – I haven't read his book yet, because some bugger of a friend of mine borrowed it as soon as it arrived. Never mind, Darwin's Dangerous Idea is absorbing me at this point.


Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

19. Comment #46863 by james_the_doubter on June 2, 2007 at 1:53 am

Thanks, ridelo.

Baeoz,

Yes, I see. I think it's just a mix up with the words "belief" and "faith". No problem.

On another note, I've never seen the contradiction of a good God, and evil in the world. Maybe, I haven't thought it through far enough, but if we have free will, we can choose to do evil things, and a loving God wouldn't squash our choice, because that's not a "good" thing to do.

About the 3 in 1 Trinity... I've always thought about it like an egg.... there's a shell, the egg white, and the yolk. All egg, but different parts.

Other Comments by james_the_doubter

20. Comment #46867 by ridelo on June 2, 2007 at 2:24 am

james_the_doubter, I don't know how old you are but I guess not very old. Try to make your mind a clean slate and act as if you heard the allegations of any religion (also your own) for the first time and evaluate them on their credibility.
But honest! No cheating!

Other Comments by ridelo

21. Comment #46868 by BAEOZ on June 2, 2007 at 2:35 am

 avatarHey James_the_doubter, I really didn't see the contradiction when I was growing up with catholic indoctrination. You get told it makes sense and leave it at that. But if god is all powerful and all good, then evil cannot exist because an all good god cannot allow bad to happen and as he's all powerful, he'd change the situation. I know lots of theologians will put limits on gods power (which then refutes their point that he's all powerful), saying he's logically omnipotent. Or that there is free will, but free will can't exist if god is omniscient at you may have read in the god delusion (if god knows everything you do, and god is timeless, god already knows any change of heart or mind you will have, therefore you have no free will, as it's all predestined or known by god).
As for the trinity, the catholic encyclopedia defines it as 3 distinct entities that are united as 1. 3 is 1, they don't deny that, they just say it's a mystery that we can't understand and to try and do so is sinful. But it's no mystery. 3 can't be 1.
Sorry, I've just crapped on, anybody care to test my logic? It's probably flawed.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

22. Comment #46869 by Spider Baby on June 2, 2007 at 3:02 am

The studies - of which there are now many - indicate that a tendency to religiosity is genetically determined; if one twin is very religious the other nearly always is too, no matter how they were brought up.


That is crap. Twin studies show that there is little variation in religious fervour.
That is, if both individuals are religious, they will be equally strongly so. But it is even wrong to call it "religious" fervour - it is more a matter of how strongly, or dogmatically, any belief is held.
There is a good explanation in Matt Ridley's "Nature Via Nurture".

Other Comments by Spider Baby

23. Comment #46870 by John Phillips on June 2, 2007 at 3:05 am

James_The_Doubter: RD doesn't try to prove that god doesn't exist, he simply looks at the evidence for one and finds none. Much as we could look at the evidence for the tooth fairy, Father Xmas, Zeus or a myriad other gods I imagine you are an atheist about. However, and here I have the same attitude as him, as scientists we can never prove a negative so must accept that there is a very small possibility (a vanishingly small one on the evidence so far, i.e. none) that one day we will find evidence for a god. In which case, as scientists, we will look at it and if it meets the type of standards a scientist expects of evidence we will accept that there is a god. Now some will argue that as we allow for however infinitesimally small a possibility that there could be a god then we should really call ourselves agnostics. However, due to the total lack of evidence so far, we see the possibility of there being a god as being so infinitesimally small as to be effectively so close to zero as to make no difference and so atheist is actually a more accurate label. To put it another way, if you wanted to split hairs, you could call us probability atheists, i.e. considering the total lack of evidence so far there is an overwhelming probability that there is no god. No belief or faith required, simply an analysis of the non existent evidence.

Other Comments by John Phillips

24. Comment #46875 by Veronique on June 2, 2007 at 3:29 am

 avatarJames the Doubter

Click on the 'atheist help and resources' at the left hand top of this page. I only read the entries a week or so ago, and I was filled with utter compassion for the posters there. It must be such a hard road.

Take care friend
V

Other Comments by Veronique

25. Comment #46878 by Logicel on June 2, 2007 at 3:55 am

 avatarAbout the 3 in 1 Trinity... I've always thought about it like an egg.... there's a shell, the egg white, and the yolk. All egg, but different parts.
_____

Cute explanation, but does the eggshell in its separateness go around hurling locusts at recalcitrant kings? Does the egg white go separately prancing about and impregnating virgins? Do yolks separately go about sacrificing themselves on the cross in order to redeem human souls?

No, they don't. They all stay together and contribute to the development of a real creature, perhaps a chicken or a sparrow.

Remember, there is no concrete evidence for the supernatural--use that handle as a lodestone, to anchor yourself to a bedrock of logic and rationality while doubting your faith.

Other Comments by Logicel

26. Comment #46879 by Logicel on June 2, 2007 at 4:01 am

 avatarSome Christians also haggle themselves out of that annoying clash of their supposed free will and the omniscience of their deity with the interpretation that though God may know what they will do and decide, they, the believers do not, that is they are not let into the God game/plan, therefore they do essentially have free will.

My brain hurts.

Other Comments by Logicel

27. Comment #46882 by Tuneful MacSingalong on June 2, 2007 at 4:14 am

The level of doublethink required of religous people is often astounding. It certainly makes my brain hurt too...

Other Comments by Tuneful MacSingalong

28. Comment #46883 by Russell Blackford on June 2, 2007 at 4:16 am

I don't think the egg explanation is very orthodox. The yolk, white, and shell are all merely parts of the egg. I think you'll find that the idea that Big Daddy God, God Junior, and Spook are parts of God is not accepted by theologians. After all, it implies that they could be separated, like when you make a meringue with the white, put the yolk in a quiche or maybe feed it to the cat, and crush the shell into your compost. A belief like that probably would have got you burned at the stake not that many centuries ago.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

29. Comment #46885 by jaytee_555 on June 2, 2007 at 4:32 am

Hey, Shuggy!

I know most Christians think of and portray Jesus as a white European person, but your avatar shows that your PINK unicorn also seems to have undergone a laundering process!

Other Comments by jaytee_555

30. Comment #46892 by Luthien on June 2, 2007 at 5:15 am

 avatar4. Comment #46832 by james_the_doubter on June 1, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Yup, yup, yup... I found myself agreeing with almost all of that.

To quote:
"The studies - of which there are now many - indicate that a tendency to religiosity is genetically determined; if one twin is very religious the other nearly always is too, no matter how they were brought up. For believers, such studies should raise a confronting question: why would an all-loving God create some of his people without the capacity for believing in him, and then, according to scriptures, send them to eternal hellfire for not believing in him?"

As a Christian, I have been quietly wondering the same thing for years.


A similar situation that I have put to a few christian friends is the question of homosexuality. There is now clear evidence of what gay people have been saying for years, that there is no "choice" in this supposed "lifestyle choice", because it was determined by your genes and hormone levels during foetal development. It simply doesn't make sense to me that a loving god would deliberately make people that were by his own laws destined for eternal torture.

Other Comments by Luthien

31. Comment #46893 by Luthien on June 2, 2007 at 5:17 am

 avatarI would also be interested to hear about those twin studies, as I was asking in another thread (a few days ago) if anyone knew of a twin study for religiousness.

Other Comments by Luthien

32. Comment #46899 by LeeLeeOne on June 2, 2007 at 5:45 am

 avatar"The studies - of which there are now many - indicate that a tendency to religiosity is genetically determined; if one twin is very religious the other nearly always is too, no matter how they were brought up."

In my family, statistically, we fall through the cracks, having been raised from birth through adulthood in the same home with the same parents. Me: an anti-theist, my twin: a devout xtian.

I always find it quite interesting that people use "studies/statistics" in their discussions; studies which can be and are manipulated either consciously or unconsciously by the interpreter. "Statistics show…" "Studies show…" Understanding that no study is 100% accurate because of the thousands of variables, but the biases of the statisticians themselves never seem to be taken into account (or are they? I am not a statistician, so I don't know). Do studies/statistics really prove/disprove their position?

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if there is a computer program that can morph itself (i.e., a self-educating program) to be rid of human biases in order to interpret the bottom line in any study?

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

33. Comment #46900 by BAEOZ on June 2, 2007 at 5:47 am

 avatar
emember, there is no concrete evidence for the supernatural--use that handle as a lodestone, to anchor yourself to a bedrock of logic and rationality while doubting your faith.

Can I get an Amen? Logiciel you just turned a 1000 of my ernest but poorly put anti-apologetics into something comprehensible. Thank Zeus you exist! Praise Thor!
And Russell, you stated clearly what I meant in the silliness of the trinity. Praise be Baal upon you.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

34. Comment #46902 by SMART on June 2, 2007 at 6:03 am

"Religion is not going to die out soon no matter how educated people become,"

Oh yes it is... in the civilised world anyway.

Other Comments by SMART

35. Comment #46903 by BAEOZ on June 2, 2007 at 6:16 am

 avatar
Oh yes it is... in the civilised world anyway.
In the last day or so I've pointed out the logical fallacies in the arguments of many a believer, but they care not. But I think you're right, if people live in society where they can fulfill their idea of being successful, then they lose the belief in a provider. Because why do you need a saviour when you're all good and don't need to be saved. If I may be so bold, I reckon Richard Dawkins version of why America is so religious has little to do with there being no state religion, I'm Australian and there is none, but more to do with the survey that was posted here a while back, stating that people who can lose their job arbitrarily believe more than those who are supported by their society, whether they lose their job or not. That is, consider the religiousity of Norway, where you can accidentally conceive an ingrown toenail by the will of an angel and still get benefits. Then compare that to the US where you're screwed by some technicality of your employer, health plan or for the benefit of the economy. If you don't work, you're on the streets (sorry if that's a generalization, but I don't get out that much!). That would make me look for a big friend who understood my plight and has "my back" .

Other Comments by BAEOZ

36. Comment #46907 by DaveK on June 2, 2007 at 6:52 am

Agnosticism is logically impregnable but boring.
Atheism is logically indefensible but interesting.

Other Comments by DaveK

37. Comment #46909 by BAEOZ on June 2, 2007 at 7:05 am

 avatarDaveK, I like the statement, but define the premise. Why is atheism indefensible? I mean it's only indefensible if you hold to the criterion that is must falsify every imaginable non-atheistic entity. no? I hope I haven't begged the question, I just would like see where you're coming from.....

Other Comments by BAEOZ

38. Comment #46910 by BAEOZ on June 2, 2007 at 7:10 am

 avatarnon-atheistic entity. I should spank myself for that double negative!It's either theistic or not. Mea culpa. Still DaveK explain if you dein.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

39. Comment #46913 by Logicel on June 2, 2007 at 7:18 am

 avatarBaeoz wrote: Can I get an Amen?
____

Of course not, but you are welcome to a loud and resounding: RAmen! As the church of the FSM is the only true religion as we all know.

This discussion on the three-in-one deal that the Christian God makes available to their minions reminds me of a comment written by a Christian at this site, that essentially it was cool that Christians get triple value for their investment. Of course, I had to mention that I believe in Joe Pesci as George Carlin does, and that since Pesci has created around 40 film characters, I am getting a better value deal.

Anyway, bitbutter has designed a quite visually attractive website and invited several of us from this site to contribute to answering questions posed to atheists. Hopefully, there is no good reason why bitbutter has failed to emblazon the url here, but being the loud, brash, native New Yorker that I am, here goes:

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions

Other Comments by Logicel

40. Comment #46915 by BAEOZ on June 2, 2007 at 7:38 am

 avatarLogicel, I followed the link and it was obvious (I hate saying that, because why would you state the obvious?) but putting on my believer tin foil hat the first explanation went so far past any "sophistcated theological discussion" to not merit thet attention." What you say is correct, but apart from the odd catholic who realistically wants evidence, you're pissin' up a rope. I reckon that the moment you choose virgin birth, you're strugglin'. Now, please don't take this as a "you hopeless atheist" or whatever. I'm just giving an impression, and I'm quite drunk. So, feel free to ignore all. Peace, love and prosperity ;-)

Other Comments by BAEOZ

41. Comment #46918 by zenmite on June 2, 2007 at 7:47 am

 avatarby Logicel wrote:
"Some Christians also haggle themselves out of that annoying clash of their supposed free will and the omniscience of their deity with the interpretation that though God may know what they will do and decide, they, the believers do not, that is they are not let into the God game/plan, therefore they do essentially have free will.
My brain hurts."

Christians argue that god's knowing what will happen is distinct from his causing it to happen, therefore there is freewill. I think they are confusing ignorance of what is determined with free will. IF everything that will ever happen CAN be known by god, this means that the future is set and determined...that events and decisions can not unfold in any other way. That is simple determinism. The individual may 'feel' like she is free when exercising the choice to believe or not, etc. But the illusion of freewill is not freewill.

However, I see little evidence of this pov in the bible itself. It seems clear that god himself believes that the future is not determined. After the flood, god is sorry he made man at all. There are countless comments like this that seem to indicate god is either not omniscient or that the future is not determined.

Of course all of this sort of discussion is rather like discussing what route the easter bunny takes when delivering eggs.

Other Comments by zenmite

42. Comment #46919 by Fishpeddler on June 2, 2007 at 7:55 am

 avatarThe agnosticism v atheism issue comes up so often that I feel like I should print-up a pamphlet I can hand out rather than having to waste time discussing it. Pamela Bone, like so many, is working from the false impression that atheism and theism represent 100% certainty in the non-existence or existence of god, and agnosticism covers everything in between (i.e., the reasonable position). Atheism is the disbelief or denial in the existence of god or gods. The term says nothing about the level of certainty of that disbelief, so there is no good reason to consider agnosticism a more appropriate label in the absence of certainty.

Perhaps the problem is with the word 'belief' itself. People like this piece's author may be interpreting a profession of belief to imply a profession of certainty as well. The more reasonable interpretation, though, is that belief in a proposition simply means that you consider it more likely than its opposite to be true.

I think Descartes more or less got it right when he suggested that the only thing of which we can be absolutely certain is our own existence as a conscience entity. If you couple Bone's argument with Descartes, you would be forced to conclude that we have to be 'agnostic' about every other fact of our existence. While this is logically correct, this is not how we represent our beliefs to one another about any other matter. For example, last night I introduced a friend to my mother. I did not give a long explanation about how I was actually 'agnostic' about whether or not she was my mother because there could have been a mix-up of babies at the hospital, I could be adopted and never told, or my real mother could have had an identical twin that murdered her and took her place. No, I just said, "This is my mom." Not at all intellectually dishonest, despite the lack of disclaimers.

This is simply how we relate to the world. Otherwise, every statement we ever make, about any subject, would have to be concluded with "... to the best of my knowledge." It would be silly to have to elaborate on our intellectual openness or uncertainty every time we make any claim of fact or belief, and this includes our discussions about our belief in god(s). When I call myself an atheist, I am saying, "To the best of my knowledge, no god exists." If you insist on calling that agnosticism, so be it, but that so extravagantly expands the meaning of the word -- while simultaneously contracting the word 'atheist' -- that the terms lose almost all their utility in our language.

I prefer it the way the terms are generally used now: If you believe in god(s) you're a 'theist', if you don't you're an 'atheist', and if you truly have no clue one way or the other you're an 'agnostic'.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

43. Comment #46921 by DaveK on June 2, 2007 at 8:12 am

Agnosticism is logically impregnable but boring.

No one can show god exists.
No one can show god doesn't exit.
Ho-hum.


Atheism is logically indefensible but interesting.

It is impossible to show god doesn't exit. It could be anywhere inside or outside the universe(s).
Hmmmmm. Interesting.

Other Comments by DaveK

44. Comment #46922 by CaptainShiny on June 2, 2007 at 8:17 am

 avatarIt sounds like the author, and perhaps a few posters, need to read some Russell.

Anyway, I was relieved to find that this article wasn't some bullshit about how Hitler was an atheist, as the title had made me worry.

Other Comments by CaptainShiny

45. Comment #46923 by Canuck#1 on June 2, 2007 at 8:19 am

 avatarReligion, with all its myths will never disappear in spite of all the proofs that make it nothing more than the Greek or Norse myths. As long as people fear death....as long as TV evagelists cry and beg and threaten......as long as schools exist from elementary to univsersity whose main purpose is to prove the biblical myths....as long as prayer is answered by what you want to happen or god is against it happening.....as long as you can feel safe among others of similar belief from the cradle to the grave. Winning for me is that I have found a peace and joy I never found in the church. Still it is interesting to debate and argue and read the messages and know there are others who feel the way I do. Amen and amen.

Other Comments by Canuck#1

46. Comment #46929 by lostpoet on June 2, 2007 at 9:19 am

 avatar
Some commentators have gone so far as to label the current crop of atheist books as "dangerous",


Dangerous indeed! Freedom...reason...critical thinking...openess. These are always dangerous to those who seek to control the lives of others through propaganda and false-promises. Atheism's moral clarity terrifies the leaders of the Great Fairy Tale; their grasp on the hapless, though wide, is increasingly tenuous.

Other Comments by lostpoet

47. Comment #46932 by TIKI AL on June 2, 2007 at 9:46 am

If there is an all-powerful God, could He whisper a foreign policy into Bush's ear that was so stupid that even He couldn't find an exit strategy from it?

Other Comments by TIKI AL

48. Comment #46934 by Fishpeddler on June 2, 2007 at 9:49 am

 avatarComment #46921 by DaveK
"Atheism is logically indefensible but interesting."

Logically defensible atheism is not dependent on showing god does not exist inside or outside of the universe, but is dependent only on god having not been shown to exist inside or outside the universe.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

49. Comment #46936 by maton100 on June 2, 2007 at 9:55 am

 avatarBehe sums it up here:
http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com

Other Comments by maton100

50. Comment #46937 by Fishpeddler on June 2, 2007 at 10:02 am

 avatarThinking some more about my above comment, I suppose one might argue that the correct default position in response to an unsubstantiated claim of existence is not disbelief, but non-belief. I've been arguing from the assumption that this distinction, while not meaningless, is not significant to the discussion.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE